I despise religion in all its forms;
their pompous tenets and the hate they spawn.
So, this is a direct attack on those who lie
And say "It’s a categorical truth ALL RIGHT!"
It’s really not a fact that god exists you know,
it’s only what you choose to think or follow.
And those who feel offended, should,
A dose of truth always does us good.
So if your blood boils when you hear my words,
be aware it’s ONLY because of what you’ve previously heard.

Are those who profess to follow a Lord,
a senseless, strength-less, sheepish hoard?
Are they, who seem to have lost the sense they’re born with,
just deluded sinners, or really heavenly winners?
Jews believe in testament old,
where Jesus’ Christ is still untold.
Christians follow the old and the new,
So that’s testament one and testament two.
Muslims I understand believe in three,
The old and the new and Muhhamad, you see.

Now I could go on with lists of their teachings,
the long-winded war words of disparate preaching,
but panoply questions come in cacophony,
And the preacher’s answer becomes, so often
Omni present, omni directional, omni dimensional
He’s just everything Okay!
Not good enough I say to that.
If there’s a God I’ll eat my hat!
Until you prove before my eyes,
there is more than what is localised
I may only accept the facts of our lives
And not your conjectures, wishes and lies.

And so, as an atheist human, I feel I should say
The long mouldy scriptures should be rested today
To favour the strength of knowing the truth
The real truth I’m saying, the one you can prove
For the truth brings a tale of a sentient creature,
a legacy grander than the book of the preacher.
The truth's in the shape of a wondrous beast,
a legendary mammal disregarded by priest.
The truth is this beast has survived on this rock,
and stands now victorious but they choose to mock!
The truth is the essence at the core of this beast,
is the most potent force from mother-nature’s teat.

The truth is this mammal, the beast whence we came,
is both fearsome and gentle but more than they’re sayin’
After ten million years of evolving scars,
we are masters on Earth with eyes in the stars!
But they teach this success is not down to us;
that a big friendly granddad just conjured us up!
They’ve spent aeon's berating how crap we all are,
when they should be applauding how an ape came this far!

I have always known about His Great Noodliness, who hasn't? but recently I found this stunning display of sickening skill! A fabulous painting by Pastafarian Miłek Jakubiec and suddenly it all became clear...

It stopped me in my tracks. I suddenly knew...
I DO believe that the earth is warming up, and I DO believe that there are less Pirates today.
Then it struck me, it may have been His Noodly appendage itself!

An epiphany!

At heart, I have always been a Pirate!

A warm feeling ran down my leg as a further revelation nudged my noggin and I realized that not only had I always believed in giant meaty balls, but also that those meaty balls should always come accompanied by a truly noodley appendage!

One thing I know for true, me hearties, of the Pirate part,

I hold no doubts!

Arrrrrrr!

But am I truly Pastafarian or Pure Pirate?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Well, I'd been wondering what to write about El Papa on his 'Big white fish-head looking pilgrim's UK tour.' (A.K.A - Heart Speaks To Heart Tour)
It's kind of all been said...

He came, he saw, but was to early to play conkers

But now he's gone. Yay, and as soon as the HIV promoter's wheels left the tarmac 'they' started with the tour's post mortem and it seems Papa Rat's Episcopal circus is being generally hailed as a success.
I've heard many interviews from bishops, priests, clergy of all shades of the RCC and Anglican totalitarian collar, hail the visit as successful, the media seems generally to be promoting it the same way and it's even the official Vatican and UK government line.
So was it? Successful I mean. Or is that just propaganda to fly through the TV screens of Roman Catholics around the world? And how would one judge its success anyway? By what measure or scale?
We haven't really got any other liars on earth who are in the pope's league, so I thought I'd look for a comparison, to other figures and events of popular culture to find a measure of the true success...

In the UK 5 times as many people watch live football
in an hour and a half
EVERY Saturday
than took the 'once-in-a-lifetime' opportunity to see the pope.

Does this not suggest that in the UK a visit by an ex-Nazi pope only carries 20% of the importance of footy?

In the first 7 hours after opening,
the box office for U2's last tour,
sold more than 4 times as many tickets
as there were UK citizens who saw the pope live in 4 days.

Doesn't this suggest that the Priestly Paedo' Protector is only 25% as important as U2?

More than double the number of people who saw this pope in his entire visit
saw the last pope at his Scotland appearance alone.

Does this not suggest that in the UK, the unHoly Roman Empire's chief concealer of secrets is only 50% as popular today as 30 years ago?
The day before one of the Pope's senior advisers (Kasper) called the UK a "third world country" marked by "a new aggressive atheism"
That was an epic-mega-fail and we all know it and, I don't think anybody actually believes that Kasper couldn't come because he was poorly. It was insulting to all the UK religions and religious (he called them all atheists). Insulting to the UK's immigrant population, inferring their presence drags Britain down and simultaneously insulting to third world countries whom he was inferring the UK is 'as bad as'. And finally, insulting to the atheists. However, this wasn't an aberration, this was the papal line...

"Benedict XVI used the first papal state visit to Britain to launch a blistering attack on "atheist extremism" and "aggressive secularism", and to rue the damage that "the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life" had done in the last century." guardian

In his opening address to the Queen at Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, the pompous pontiff appeared to link atheism to Nazism!! I know he's old but he did know he was in Britain, the bane of fascism, didn't he?.
Did anybody else notice how clean and pressed all the hangers-on looked? Those uniforms looked new, eh? And how many of the people who went to see him had a new suit, dress, hat, shoes or what-have-you? And how much was spent travelling to see him, staying over night etc? All that cash spent to see this guy and hear him insult us! And there were at least a quarter of a million damp crotches scurrying up to the magic man's Best Friend Forever! And to a catholic they spent more than a pound each? More than £10? More than a £100? More than a £1000?
Shall we go with a meagre average for an all-in "Sunday best fit out, B+B and transport" of £500 per head and that's 250,000 heads remember!

That's £125 Million that could have been given to the poor and needy!

Shit, if the Government had had the foresight to put a special 10% tax on anything to do with seeing the old goat, the rest of us wouldn't have had fork out for them to fawn over his holy arse!
Instead of the Pope saying "I'll speak via TV from Vatican and the pay per view ticket price is £10 to by condoms for Africa", the pope, his minions, lackeys, toadies and the faithful collectively, removed 125 million pounds worth of aid from the mouths of starving children to have a lash up with all the glitzy pomp and ceremony!
And all because they're collectively pretending that the god they pretend in thinks the papa is a righteous dude!
The Papa Rapped for, as close as I can estimate, for a total of 90 minutes over his stay, that's actual speeches etc. not the ceremonial stuff that any priest could have performed or a monkey come to that!
Less than 1/216th of the UK population could be bothered to rock up to listen to him for that hour and a half and, while a quarter of a million people saw him, more than a 20th of that number were protesting against his visit!
He spoke with 5 victims of his church's sex abuse scandal for 30 minutes, that's 6 minutes each...

I wonder how that compares with the time their

priestly abusers lavished upon with them?

The next time one of them wakes up, freezing and soaked through with sweat, in the dark of the night, from yet another nightmare memory of their smashed childhood, I'm sure those few stolen moments with the holy Roman Emperor will be of great comfort.
That's the problem with the people who think they have they ear of a god and the right to be its mouthpiece - no sense of diplomacy!
Do you think he's ever heard the phrase you catch more bugs with honey?
Or, perhaps he'd know it as you can fiddle more kiddies with a bag of sweeties?
And for £12,000,000 quid, given such a collected throng of clergy, every measure of authoritarian faithful, you'd think the big-bastard upstairs would have put in an appearance!
If Papa Rat is so worried about our secular society, you'd have thought he'd have had a word with his immediate line manager!
Surely for an Omniscient being, it would have been an easier gig to conjure up a globally convincing 30 second cameo than predicting that Adam and Eve were going to be tempted!
So, let's set this 'successful' visit into some reality perspective.

IT WAS NOT

But for the RCC's CEO and his publicity machine this is what 'successful' means!
That's an interesting viewpoint, given some of the details above, isn't it?
Do you think it would be wise to remember their shall we say, skewed and propagandised view of 'successful'?
I think from now on, and for long into the future, every time I hear the Roman Catholic church make announcements about how 'successful' they have been in their eradication of sex offenders from their faith, I shall cast a cautious eye, with a clear memory of what the papal visit has shown us about their comprehension of the meaning of that word.
As a final very annoyed thought on the whole embarrassing debacle, check out our fabulous UK politicians in the video below...

The Posh-boy and the two sell outs!

Now you can understand a little toadying from the posh boy, he's a fully loved up pretender in god, so god's be-frocked Best Friend Forever is going to make the Posh Boys knees tremble, isn't he? And that's without mentioning the in-bred reverence for old money he's likely to have!
But Nick Clegg! The ATHEIST! To an atheist there is no god - so that makes every member of the clergy an out and out liar, right?
So, how did Godless Nick manage to not only hold his temper and refrain from blurting, "I can't shake the hand of a liar! So, oh Ratty one, please enlighten us, why do you think it's okay to lie to everybody about creation?", but also achieve the level of simpering sycophant we saw?
And then there was my former heroic champion of equality, Harriet Harman. Check the history. If I remember correctly, only a few months ago, it was Harriet's equality bill that was blocked by bishops in the Lords. She is totally against the pope's stance on equality, yet, there she was, smiling and quivering! Instead of spitting at him in the face and screaming, "I cannot shake your hand you nasty old man until you change your misogynistic, homophobic, HIV promoting and paedophile protecting dogma!", we had more pleasant toadying.
When are we going to get politicians who don't suffer fools?
Politicians who are prepared to give a big fat public wedgey to despots and purveyors of dogma?
Hey! Looks like it hadn't all been said after all! Lol.

Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world.

I think we can safely assume that we (humanity) generally accept that for any crime, a fair trial is a human right, not merely for the accused but also for the social conscience benefit of justice being seen to be done. It is also generally accepted that when on trial for a crime, in courts based on British law at least, that the case’s evidence and testimonies should be assessed by '12 good men and true'. A phrase which, though now somewhat sexist, does succinctly encapsulate the concept of examination of the facts of the case before a jury of one's peers.
Now, that's all fine and dandy and, thus far, the most just method we have found to reasonably and fairly conclude a verdict but it’s the phrases "a group of one's peers" and, to a lesser extent, "12 good men and true" I'm going to address today.
From my point of view and, I suggest, also from the view of anyone who has never been exposed to scripture, there is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any god. I would hope therefore that the only people who would be considered my peers would be those who have come, through a process of rational thought, to the same rational, godless conclusion.
If I were on trial, I find I would be extremely discomforted by the presence within the justice system, if not it's reliance upon, aspects of spiritual faith or, if you'll permit me, the holy ghost in the machine. I'll try to explain why.
A rational atheist will happily state that there is no evidence for god(s), whereas a devotee of a theistic faith is unlikely even to admit the lack of evidence, let alone honestly concede "There’s no evidence of god but I choose to believe regardless", and most would even argue that there is evidence, obtained via application of a commonly known religious principle "Some things must be believed to be seen".
But this is a poor principle, as I see it, it means only "You must first pretend, before you can extrapolate circumstantial support." Any human who believes there is a god, is therefore stating merely what they pretend, or would like, to be true.
Any individual who is willing to swear on a theistic 'holy' book is clearly making a declaration that they hold god(s) as a fact. If, to them, god was not a fact then the notion of swearing on that god's 'holy' book would be irrelevant, preposterous or even offensive.
From my point of view, any individual who holds as a fervent fact that for which there is no evidence is guilty of irrational thought. The evidence for god is unavailable yet they have concluded, because of a novel they once read or, more commonly, of which they were told the bullet points, that the novel's fictitious content is the truth of reality. So, isn't it also right to consider anybody appearing at a trial and happily swearing on a 'holy' book, as incapable of rational judgement? Also, I’d suggest any human who expects a person to swear on a theistic 'holy' book is in full acceptance of this "let's pretend" view of reality, an irrational act which makes them complicit in the delusion.
Might one rightfully assume that, when examining trial evidence, a juror who has got ‘the faith’ is also capable of finding links and causes where there are none? As they have managed to find in favour of god despite the complete lack of evidence, might they also apply the same shoddy reasoning to the crimes of a little human "sinner", a word of faith not of rationality, and just as easily find against the accused for their faith's views on the sin, as much as for the facts of the case?
As people of faith may already ascribe, not only the label 'sin' but also the concept of that sin and its scriptural punishment, to the crime, have they not already committed a level of prejudgement?
So, in a situation where the weighing of evidence and conclusion thereby of a rational verdict is the prime requirement, how can any rational human trust the judgement of a juror who has ‘the faith' and professes god as a fact? They have proved they have no idea how to properly, rationally and dispassionately come to a balanced judgement by their own admission; they hold true that for which there is no evidence unless first one pretends there is. So, why should their judgement be considered valid?
Speaking of Judgement, the need for the individual to be afforded a fair trial should also extend to the judge. How could one expect a judge, who holds god as a fact, to judge the case rationally? The judge's tendency towards irrational choices displayed by his decision to follow that for which there is no evidence could be repeated when judging the trial’s evidence. The prejudgement of the sin point also applies here; the judge may consider how his god will view his judgement - to put it simplistically - "If the punishment is insufficient will my god be angry with me?"
As a further thought, no matter how sincerely a person of faith proclaims "my faith will have no bearing on my ability to assess the facts of the case", how can their proclamation be trusted? Most faiths prohibit suspension of belief under the threat of eternal torture but even if they were courageous enough to brave that threat, even if they wanted to, just for the length of the trial, most devotees could not simply ‘switch off’ a lifetime’s indoctrination.
In the same way that one cannot trust charitable works by the faithful to be of truly altruistic motive because their conscience is continually held ransom by Satan’s shotgun, how can it be proved that their faith has had no bearing on evidence laid before them? I mean, whilst they continue to profess belief, they may not even be aware themselves, that their pretending has a bearing on their every thought. (There's a more in depth exploration of this in "Your point is Not Valid" if you're interested)

So, how does the phrase "12 good men and true" look now?The "Good" part of the phrase…
The believer of a theistic faith which professes "peace and goodwill to all" is perceived by society as more honest than a rational atheist but as I've suggested here, the mere presence of their faith suggests they are considerably less so! In a Justice system weighted so heavily on a belief in a god, doesn't that eliminate the word Good from the phrase?The "True" part of the phrase…
Swearing on a theistic 'holy' book is proof that the juror/witness etc. holds as a verified fact that for which there is no evidence whatsoever. Doesn't that eliminate the True Part of the phrase?
Where does that leave us? I mentioned the sexist nature of the phrase at the start so now we have…

So next time you're are on trial, no matter the seriousness of the charge, don't forget to ask for a rational judge and jury. Maybe the ARC card will help you do that.You never know, it could save your life!

For more reasons why I think there's a case for removing faith from law courts
Check out this video by Not 1 Delusion

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!Back to the Core TMQ

Two articles sparked my thoughts for this post, so I've included a couple of snippets as a grounding on where it came from.

Twelve good men and true?Juries are a cornerstone of the British legal system. But can jurors' individual prejudices get in the way of a fair verdict? Jon Holbrook investigates"The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury," Mark Twain said. A century later, most accept that juries have a rightful place in the criminal justice system, and few would criticise them with Twain's brutal language. But his concern about the jury's ability to reach fair verdicts on the evidence lives on.

Stop dribbling – your country needs you on the juryBeing tried by 12 good men and true sounds brilliant but if, God forbid, you were to find yourself in the dock charged with a crime you did not commit, would you want to be tried by 11 dinner ladies and Trigger from Only Fools and Horses? Or Wayne Rooney? Or Piers Morgan?
Speaking personally, I’d far rather plead my case in front of nothing but a judge. I know that some are a bit doddery, and that many live in houses with no central heating, but most are more astute than the alternative: 11 lunching ladies and Benny from Crossroads.

The following dialogue is a thought experiment only and continues my earlier works on blasphemy.
My hope in these muses is to show that the prosecution of Blasphemy is fraught with difficulty.
In a situation where a devotee of this or that high membership cult or religion claims blasphemous offence, then true justice, where the guilty offender is punished fairly and the offended feels the punishment is sufficient, is almost impossible to achieve.
No offence is meant by these muses, this is only a question of academic importance, the following dialogue is patently fiction.

"Jesus-fuckin'-Christ! Abraham, this Belly Pork you've brought is rank! Take it back to Cohen and Muhammad's Prawn and Pork Emporium and have one of the Paedo-Priests we keep there chop up a fresh one; and we'll have none of that barbaric Halal/Kosher bollocks this time! The last inhumanely killed one, was still kicking when it got here! It was sickening! Tell the kiddie-fiddler it's for the midwinter solstice beer and shagfest, so it's got to be good enough for Jehovah to have sex with! Bung him a bag of sweets, they all seem to have a sweet tooth for some reason. Feel old Cohen up for a sack of those black market crispy foreskins he's got under counter; prawn cocktail flavour are always good! And tell Cohen's Sikh slave, I need his two youngest daughters for the ceremonial spit roast again; they went down very favourably last year! But DON'T tell him that; he'll want more money. And, Oh yes, bring his best looking sheep too."

"For the sacrifice your Holiness?"

"Er-r-r- Ye-e-e-sss for that!"

"Right, Pope, I'll get to it."

Abraham, a typical religious sycophant, starts to scurry away.

"Hold your horses! You know you can't leave without kissing my ring."

Abraham stops and looks hesitant.

"Come on, come on, my haemorrhoids are killing me!"

And so to a number of questions...

Is the dialogue blasphemous?

To whom is it blasphemous?

Is the dialogue more blasphemous to one religion/cult than another?

If a piece is considered blasphemous to numerous religions/cults, is it therefore more blasphemous and so will incur multiple fines?

If it is to incur multiple fines, who will decide which religion/cult gets to put the blasphemer on trial first?

How would the size of the blasphemy be assessed?

Would each blasphemy be given a blasphemy 'score' from a pan-religion/cult assessed scale, or merely classified as 'more blasphemous' or 'less blasphemous'?

Would any classification of the grade of blasphemy be assessed by the courts or individual religious bodies?

My answers?

1. The dialogue is only blasphemous if you choose to think those named are figures from the various religious fictions.
2. Only those whom have been indoctrinated by the various religious fictions would find it blasphemous.
3. I've been considering this almost since I first conceived the muse. I don't know if it's possible for me to assess it because I've not been indoctrinated by all the religions/cults equally. (My religious background, or rather, my family's traditional faith is Protestant).
4,5. One would assume that if a piece were considered blasphemous by more than one cult, there would have to be a pre-trial to assess various aspects.
6 My only answer here is a funny one. One could have the offended party in the witness box and have them let out a scream of anger, sufficient to express their personal level of outrage felt.
7, 8 In the true spirit of one-up-man-ship that the all religions of 'peace' so relish, it seems very likely to me that every level of blasphemous offence would quickly be elevated to gain a death sentence. So, I would hope that secular impartial courts would decide!

So, what do you think, is the offence of blasphemy provable? Or, would the pre-trial interfaith quibbling tie any ruling up for years, maybe even, decades?
Anyway, that's your lot for now, if you're still looking for more, here are some posts that are probably considered blasphemy by some fuckwit or other...

This Post is solely dedicated to Glasgow's Amanda Chisholm for her very succinct summing up of how the UK feels about being screwed over by Tony Blair and subsequent officials who have imposed Papa Joe upon us.
I was going to write something myself, I still might, but then I saw this on a retweet by @GodlessAndHappy and I thought I couldn't put it better myself, so I haven't.
Thanks Amanda

Well I used to be proud to be British but now I find that the evil practice genital mutilation is going on here and not one politician is making a fuss about it, I find I am disgusted to be British.

British girls undergo horror of genital mutilation despite tough laws
Female circumcision will be inflicted on up to 2,000 British schoolgirls during the summer holidays – leaving brutal physical and emotional scars. Yet there have been no prosecutions against the practice

Please be aware this video is disurbing(http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2010/jul/25/girls-facing-female-circumcision)

While this continues and nothing is done by our politicians or police, it gives the clear signal that we (the Britons) find the slicing up of young women acceptable. I would suggest that the great majority of the Britons would be appalled.
So, the question is simple -

Is every single British M.P. in favour of this evil religion's traditional child abuse?

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE

Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,THREE WORDS OR LESSOR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

The free thinking democratic peoples of earth (generally non-Muslim) think the states of authoritarianism, totalitarianism and fascism to be the natural antithesis of freedom and therefore an evil to be shunned. We have fought wars against regimes which limit free speech.
So, I found this nice little explanation of fascism on Wikipedia. It seems fair enough as a description of fascism to me but I'm no expert, if you disagree amend Wikipedia and let me know so I can amend here.
Anyway, I've moderated it a bit to try and show how little difference I see between this definition of Fascism and even the moderate view of the religion of Islam. I've put a strike though the originals and the pink are my inserts...

One common definition of fascismIslam focuses on three groups of ideas:

a) FascistIslamic Negations

Anti-liberalism

Anti-communismequality

AntiPro-conservatism

b) Ideology and goals

Creating a new nationalist, global, authoritarian state not based on tradition

A new kind of regulated, multi-class national economic structure which can transform stifles social relations, whether syndicalist, corporatist or national socialist

The goal of empire

An idealist, voluntaristmandatory creed, typically to realizecrush a new modern, self-determined secular culture

Mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and the goal of a mass party militia

Positive view and use of violence

Extreme stress on the masculine principle

Exaltation of youthold

Authoritarian, charismatic personal style of command

Conclusion:
I feel all religions fulfil the criteria of the boiled down description of fascism which, for me, has always been, any ideology that states

"It's my way or the (eternal) highway"

but even with this detailed description, it seems to me that there is barely any difference between the imperfect Quran and the Authoritarian Fascist ideologies of the Nazis.
For me, even 'moderate' Islam is a fascist doctrine.
Question here is simple...
All our Grandfathers fought and died in a war against fascism, millions of free men, fathers, brothers and sons lost their lives so we could remain free and retain free speech.
Why are the governments of the free world allowing such a blatantly fascist dogma to thrive in the fought for and won free lands of Earth?
Why is Islam even allowed in the UK or any of Europe or the USA?
A further if less important question remains...
Is the organisation United Against Fascism actually against fascism? If they are, should they not be aligned alongside the Council of Ex Muslims Britain and One Law for All in the struggle against the blatantly and obviously fascist Quran?

for more click the Evil of Islam tab above

This is one of the Too Many Questions

PEACE
Crispy

Please leave a comment - Anything will do
The best communications are often,THREE WORDS OR LESS
OR ONE OR MORE FINGERS!

Copyright Crispy Sea

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher.